The Shroud of Turin is Fake by Professor Luigi Garlaschelli

I love the priorities of our modern scientists. I mean, in this century we are truly blessed to have the brilliance of today’s thinking men proving such important things such as why we cry and how we have alien bacteria.

Really, who cares about cancer, H1N1, or any of these other serious problems killing people daily? Shouldn’t we focus on more important things such as religious relic re-creation?

In a new article just released, the Shroud of Turin is a fake (according to Luigi Garlaschelli). Not really newsworthy, is it?

My Official Position on the Shroud of Turin Cloth

Let me reaffirm my position on the shroud. I have NEVER made a definitive statement such as “the shroud is authentic,” or “the shroud is a fake.” I wasn’t there when it was made.

My position on the shroud has always been, “I don’t know.” I think it has some very compelling evidence, but I don’t place my faith in a cloth, I place my faith in a risen Christ. I find it hard to believe it is a forgery at this point in time based on the overwhelming evidence, but I am neutral on the shroud and despite watching a documentary or two (and posting a couple of articles on this site), I really don’t think about it too often.

Whether the shroud is authentic or not really doesn’t make a difference to me or my faith. But it does annoy me when the secular scientists make it a point to be complete fools. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what’s happening in an article that is making headlines as “definitive proof the shroud is a fake.”

Proof the Shroud is Fake: Discovered by Luigi Garlaschelli

Since when did something become a fake just because it can be reproduced centuries later? Who would believe a headline that says,

“The Mona Lisa painting is fake, and a scientists can prove it… because it can be re-created by scientists hundreds of centuries later using advanced technology and materials (paint) that were available back then..”

Really, this is absurd. And we know it is completely absurd because in the articles we are shown who this man is funded by: Atheists and agnostics. So did we really expect Luigi to prove it was the real burial cloth of Jesus when he is getting paid to do a job by atheists? Go figure. This is on par for how today’s research and funding is conducted. The same holds true for the theory of evolution (unfortunately).

So atheists pay this man money to re-create religious relics, simply to try to prove their religion (atheism) is more superior? Huh? Well, I am glad to see the atheists are ignoring the starving children in Africa, and funding much more important things right now: religious relic replication.

Or do they really think that if the cloth was fake, it would even bother one serious Christian? I think not. If I have said it once, I have said it 1,000 times: Some atheists are the most religious people I know, and they are far more fundamental than most religious people I know. They mock and scoff at religious people donating money to a church, but freely fund nonsense like this and never think twice about it. Hypocrites.

Perhaps the creationists should release a press release that says the following:

Evolution’s transition fossils are fake: scientists have proved it… They were able to recreate fossils that appear to be transitionary in a lab using materials (elements) that were available at the time when the original fossils were thought to have been created. Therefore, atheists creation story (evolution/abiogenesis) is fake, and their religious relics (fossils) are fake. They can be recreated, therefore, that is proof they are fake.

Since when did secular scientists start using that logical fallacy anyway? If something is recreatable centuries later, it must have been a fake originally? That is the most obvious example of a logical fallacy I have ever heard.

Seriously, it really annoys me when news stations publish this biased nonsense. It is an insult to any one’s intelligence (whether you are an atheist or Christian).

Furthermore, the articles mentions nothing about other known scientific evidence of the cloth, or what he replicated: the blood stains, the pollen grains, and more. It just says he was able to re-create the image. So what if he re-created an image. The image isn’t really the compelling evidence.

Why would they go to such detail to place pollen grains specific to that region where Jesus was thought to have lived, when a microscope needed to view and analyze the pollen grains were not even yet invented?

Conclusion: Who Cares?

In conclusion, who cares whether the shroud is authentic or a fake? Does that prove one way or another that Jesus is the Christ? Does it prove one way or another that there is a God?

The bottom line is this: I don’t care whether the shroud is fake or real. It makes no bearing on my faith. But this article (or scientist’s re-creation) did zilch to affect my beliefs of the shroud.

No, I take that back. It actually makes me lean more in the direction that the shroud might be authentic after all. Why? Because they are throwing so much money and time at it, in an attempt to prove it might be fake. So they must be worried. Perhaps there is something there after all.